Apple Watch Series 4 has smaller batteries than Series 3, official specs show

An official spec sheet shows that despite what was claimed in a third-party teardown this week, the Series 4 has slightly reduced battery capacity versus the Series 3, even if it doesn't appear to affect running time.

The battery cell in the 44mm Series 4 is rated at 1.12 watt-hours against the 42mm Series 3's 1.34, the sheet indicates. Similarly, the 40mm Series 4 has just 0.86 watt-hours versus the 38mm Series 3's 1.07.

Apple nevertheless markets the Series 4 as achieving the same 18-hour battery life as before. That's presumably because of improved power consumption, for instance through the adoption of LTPO (low-temperature polycrystalline oxide) for its display.

Better battery life is still one of the more common demands for the Apple Watch. Models can sometimes last two days or more with light use, but only a day or less when people take advantage of power-hungry features like workout tracking or cellular phone calls. Rival smartwatches, like those from Fitbit can run for three or four days, even with the inclusion of additional features like sleep tracking.

Comments

My AWS3 gets on average 2-3 days. Two days with a workout included and at least 20% of power left at the end of day two. Three days I’m ending with battery at 1% by 12 midnight.

So so my take on this is that Apple was able to see that their watches were getting much better times than the 18hrs they apexes for. So I look at this that Apple saves space by using a smaller battery but by still saying they get 18hr plus is probably correct but won’t get the 2-3 days I get now.

So so my take on this is that Apple was able to see that their watches were getting much better times than the 18hrs they apexes for. So I look at this that Apple saves space by using a smaller battery but by still saying they get 18hr plus is probably correct but won’t get the 2-3 days I get now.

This doesn't put me off getting an S4, but I'd like to know what Apple did with the space in 'saved'. I doubt they did it just to keep the run time at 18hrs. I'm for more battery, as much battery as possible. The bigger the battery, the overall potential for a longer lifespan.

Apple constantly strives for and highlights the thinness of it's products, which is generally fine by me. But I'd like them to also consider consistently striving for longer battery life, and not '18hrs... Yeah, that should be plenty' and the '18hrs... Same as last time!'

So so my take on this is that Apple was able to see that their watches were getting much better times than the 18hrs they apexes for. So I look at this that Apple saves space by using a smaller battery but by still saying they get 18hr plus is probably correct but won’t get the 2-3 days I get now.

This doesn't put me off getting an S4, but I'd like to know what Apple did with the space in 'saved'. I doubt they did it just to keep the run time at 18hrs. I'm for more battery, as much battery as possible. The bigger the battery, the overall potential for a longer lifespan.

Apple constantly strives for and highlights the thinness of it's products, which is generally fine by me. But I'd like them to also consider consistently striving for longer battery life, and not '18hrs... Yeah, that should be plenty' and the '18hrs... Same as last time!'

Agree, the watch is thinner now - a feature that has been praised and after by more people than that of battery life, Since everyone pretty much charge their phone nightly it's not an immediate concern at the moment.

Agree, the watch is thinner now - a feature that has been praised and after by more people than that of battery life, Since everyone pretty much charge their phone nightly it's not an immediate concern at the moment.

It’s the stupid preoccupation with the Taptic Engine that robs battery space here, and hastened the elimination the headphone jack in the phones. One could argue it serves more of a purpose here, but I wonder how big a traditional haptic motor would be in comparison. I’ll still buy both.

How is it possible that both sizes of the Series 1 Apple Watch are reported as having 0.93 Watt hours when lots of people complained the 38mm got worse battery life? Is this a typo or did they actually use the same battery in both versions? Sure they didn't ship the 42mm model full of air!?!?

Series 4 (44mm) is still a 20% increase over Series 1. This has vindicated my decision to order the 44mm model.

Better battery life is still one of the more common demands for the Apple Watch. Models can sometimes last two days or more with light use, but only a day or less when people take advantage of power-hungry features like workout tracking or cellular phone calls. Rival smartwatches, like those from Fitbit can run for three or four days, even with the inclusion of additional features like sleep tracking.

Yes but these fitbits can’t do phone calls, etc. There’s nothing magic about fitbits and missing in AW, it’s just different product compromises in featuresets and usage of the limited power.

So so my take on this is that Apple was able to see that their watches were getting much better times than the 18hrs they apexes for. So I look at this that Apple saves space by using a smaller battery but by still saying they get 18hr plus is probably correct but won’t get the 2-3 days I get now.

This doesn't put me off getting an S4, but I'd like to know what Apple did with the space in 'saved'. I doubt they did it just to keep the run time at 18hrs. I'm for more battery, as much battery as possible. The bigger the battery, the overall potential for a longer lifespan.

Apple constantly strives for and highlights the thinness of it's products, which is generally fine by me. But I'd like them to also consider consistently striving for longer battery life, and not '18hrs... Yeah, that should be plenty' and the '18hrs... Same as last time!'

Since you have to charge the device the AW is an accessory to everyday anyway, this isn’t a huge problem. Additionally most people sleep sans watch, so after slipping it off your wrist slapping it onto the beside charger afterward is effortless, less work than plugging in the phone it’s accessory to. Instead of setting your watch on the night-table you set it onto the charger, and go to sleep. You can do it in the dark with ease.

Until there’s a miracle breakthrough in power storage that’s just gonna be the way it is. Hasnt stopped smartphones from replacing longer-lasting feature phones.

Agree, the watch is thinner now - a feature that has been praised and after by more people than that of battery life, Since everyone pretty much charge their phone nightly it's not an immediate concern at the moment.

It’s the stupid preoccupation with the Taptic Engine that robs battery space here, and hastened the elimination the headphone jack in the phones. One could argue it serves more of a purpose here, but I wonder how big a traditional haptic motor would be in comparison. I’ll still buy both.

Incorrect, the haptic engine was not why they got rid of the legacy analog audio port. The VP of engineering did an interview and was very specific — battery, water seals, better camera modules.

"7 days or more battery life" arguments for the Apple Watch are similar to the "physical keyboard, or bust" arguments for the early iPhones and the "headphone jack, or bust" arguments on the later iPhones.

Another point: On the wrist, thinner is actually better, so that is something Apple should obsess over.

And that Spartan is a joke of a wireless iPod, a joke for digital payments, a joke for notifications, a joke for apps, a joke for ECG, etc etc..

See the point?

No I do not see the point. I do not argue to your feature list but as an outdoor watch it is simply useless!

I use spartan ultra for 3 years now and when I go mountaineering or ski touring I can use it easily 3 days without charging and using GPS. If GPS is not used the watch will go easily 1-2 weeks without charging. I doubt Apple Watch can do that! Haven't tested it though...

Digital payments are useless in Europe for now.

Notifications are also useless in the backcountry because mostly there is no cell signal.

Wireless iPod. Who needs that?

EGC is a neat feature that is again not working in EU.

I am not saying AWatch is a bad. Contrary. I see it as a good devie, but I wish apple would make a version with better battery to go at list few days without charging when you are in the backcountry.

And that Spartan is a joke of a wireless iPod, a joke for digital payments, a joke for notifications, a joke for apps, a joke for ECG, etc etc..

See the point?

No I do not see the point. I do not argue to your feature list but as an outdoor watch it is simply useless!

I use spartan ultra for 3 years now and when I go mountaineering or ski touring I can use it easily 3 days without charging and using GPS. If GPS is not used the watch will go easily 1-2 weeks without charging. I doubt Apple Watch can do that! Haven't tested it though...

Digital payments are useless in Europe for now.

Notifications are also useless in the backcountry because mostly there is no cell signal.

Wireless iPod. Who needs that?

EGC is a neat feature that is again not working in EU.

I am not saying AWatch is a bad. Contrary. I see it as a good devie, but I wish apple would make a version with better battery to go at list few days without charging when you are in the backcountry.

How are digital payments useless in Europe? I used Apple Pay all over Europe this Summer...